ESA says "Non/nein/nuncai" to Russia on Kliper partnership

hop wrote:

John Halpenny wrote:

Actually, what is the case for Kliper at all? It is heavier and more
expensive than the Soyuz, and Soyuz already exists, has been tested many
times, and has the potential for lunar flights.
OTOH, Soyuz has a number of limitations that require a fresh spacecraft
to fix. It is very cramped even with 3 (requiring 2 spacecraft act as a
CRV for a full ISS crew), and has very limited cargo capacity, and
quite harsh re-entry/landing conditions. The latter matters both for
tourist flights and possible medical evacuations.

The biggest problem with the Soyuz may be the parachute landing system.
All parachute systems can have rough landings and lead to extensive repairs if
you want to reuse the vehicle. Parachute landing systems are even installed on
some aircraft - see http://www.brsparachutes.com/ - but they have the
unfortunate effect of turning a reusable vehicle into an expendable one.

Of course, the proposed CEV will have the same problem.



As far as cost goes, the Russians claim Kliper will have significantly
reduced ground processing requirements compared to Soyuz. This should
of course be taken with the usual dose of salt associated with
marketing statements, but if true, could actually lower the per flight
cost.




--

John Halpenny